Why Was John Kerry Acceptable To Democrats/"Progressives"

[Patranus]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

 

[Atreus21]

Because he's a democrat...?

 

[Patranus]

Because he's a democrat...?

So they are hypocrites, got it.

Thanks.

 

[cybrsage]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

He was not Bush.

 

[Atreus21]

So they are hypocrites, got it.

Thanks.

Republicans are no different, Patranus. Let's be honest. We pull for them because they're on our team.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

Please link to where Democrats and "progressives" said Romney should not be president because he has money.

Oh, so you're are lying sack of shit? got it.

Thanks.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I realize a serious answer has no place in a troll thread, but the difference is rich Democrats typically aren't trying to dismantle the social safety nets that catch the folks being pushed into poverty by the creative destruction they profit from.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

I though the idea was that Republicans (Romney's party, obviously) have played a lot of rhetoric against raising taxes, especially on the rich. So for Romney to theoretically pay very few taxes percentage wise would further fuel Democratic outrage.

On the other hand, if we surmise that Democrats are more in favor of raising taxes on the rich, then it's not as big a deal for Kerry to make more money, because he'd pay a higher percentage of taxes on that money.


Of course, all politicians are hypocrites too, but regardless of all that, I think that's the general idea?

 

[Craig234]

FDR was not poor. JFK was in one of the wealthiest families in the US.

It's not about their HAVING MONEY, it's about their POLICIES.

I don't care if a candidate is rich or poor if he supports policies that are overly serving of the rich and harmful to most Americans - I'm against him the same either way.

John Kerry was BETTER THAN REPUBLICANS on that issue. It didn't matter if he had money or not. He was actually too moderate, but far better than Bush on policy.

 

[Lemon law]

Because Kerry made his money by marrying into the Heinz family and the Heinz family made its money selling bottles of Ketchup one bottle at a time. No one forced anyone to buy from Heinz's rather than its competitors while the Heinz family employed thousand of workers to boot.

Its the rotten way that both Romney and Gingrich made their money that is the crucial difference. Money is not evil, its who that gets screwed in making the money that counts.

Making both Romney and Gingrich both first class rat finks. Many rich families donate to worthy causes, some enter politics, and others don't. We could take Teddy Roosevelt, born Independently wealthy, but he still was a champion of the common man with a honest merchant for a daddy. Or we could talk about Nelson Rockeller with a rotten Daddy for a father. But still, Nelson became Gov of New york and compiled a very good progressive record as Republican Gov of New York.

Sad to say, a Rockefeller Republican is a rare breed anymore.

 

[woolfe9999]

Please link to where Democrats and "progressives" said Romney should not be president because he has money.

Oh, so you're are lying sack of shit? got it.

Thanks.

/thread. Straw man thread.

People have criticized the fact that Romney pays less in total taxes than the middle class, but even that isn't a criticism of Romney per se. It's a criticism of the current system of taxation. On wealth grounds alone? So far the only one to make that an issue is Newt Gingrich in his PAC's Bain capital mockumentary. Patranus is best addressing his concerns to Mr. Gingrich over his use of class warfare in his attack ads, and leave the liberals out of their primary battles.

 

[dank69]

Why are Republicans unable to discern the source of attacks on Romney's campaign?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

Because the National Debt wasn't $15 trillion dollars in 2004 and we weren't in the middle of a horrible recession with near 10% unemployment?

Any more ridiculously stupid questions?

 

[Steeplerot]

Why was John Kerry an acceptable candidate in 2004 to Democrats and "progressives"?

John Kerry is worth 10x more than Romney and "earned" his money by marrying into the Heinz family.

So, how is Romney's money an issue or are the Democrats and "progressives" just hypocrites and are just trying to play the class warfare card?

This is a red herring, I know plenty of slumlord and dope addict losers who are the worst reactionary 1% even though they are broke. Class is not tied to a dollar amount, it's about unhealthy exploitation and wealth addiction for whatever reasons (socioeconomic/personal, whatever). FDR being a good example of how there are good people out there with money.

If anything it is a failed strategy to divide class by income, the left pissing all over people with money in the face of the corrupted system will get us nowhere but broke and typically squabbling with one another over details.

You have no clue about the left from or more importantly class consciousness. This is the problem with you not understanding the disconnect.

Your broad brush is a very childish view, hopefully you righties THINK like this more often and wonder why what you have been told MAKES NO SENSE in reality.

Spreading disinformation to dupe working class people IS class warfare YOU are perpetuating here.

Once again, this is the US of freaking A if you put effort into your work YOU SHOULD BE REWARDED, but letting the playing field be skewed by letting a few at the top game the system for themselves is unamerican, uncapitalistic, and downright exploitative. If you are a lazy ass then you will fail, but if you are a motivated person who cannot get a leg up something is wrong, this is the most basic concept of American leftism you fail to realize or do not want to accept for partisan silly poorly thought out idealogical reasons.

And what do you care about who he married? How do you know he does not love her? They have been together a LONG time and went into a high authority position to help people, maybe he used the money thing to get his way in, GOOD FOR HIM! That shows initiative. If I was you guys I would worry more about the scandal ridden stuff of what YOUR guys are doing in the bedrooms since you "small government" cons really seem to love snooping into peoples personal lives so much.

Small minded busybody hypocrites, the calling card of reactionary thought.

 

[theeedude]

Romney's money is an issue for conservatives, not liberals, it was Newt Gingrich who brought it up.

 

[Genx87]

I realize a serious answer has no place in a troll thread, but the difference is rich Democrats typically aren't trying to dismantle the social safety nets that catch the folks being pushed into poverty by the creative destruction they profit from.

Neither are republicans. Who expanded medicare in the last decade?

But while democrats like Kerry pay an even lower tax rate than romney they whine about people not paying their fair share.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Neither are republicans. Who expanded medicare in the last decade?

But while democrats like Kerry pay an even lower tax rate than romney they whine about people not paying their fair share.

People not paying their fair share, ie starving the beast, is exactly how Republicans are trying to dismantle those safety nets.

 

[Steeplerot]

Neither are republicans. Who expanded medicare in the last decade?

But while democrats like Kerry pay an even lower tax rate than romney they whine about people not paying their fair share.

Maybe you guys should join in then, if both sides had a bit of class conciseness instead of kissing ass to the wealthy/powerful hoping to be handed the world by them for swallowing their BS like some entitled wanna-be aristocracy this country wouldn't be so corrupt.

Both sides need to police this stuff lest you fall into the realm of partisan hypocrisy, this is how democracy works. Republicans used to be able to govern and think rationally, granted its been awhile. *goes to take a shower after kinda defending the right*

 

[Genx87]

People not paying their fair share, ie starving the beast, is exactly how Republicans are trying to dismantle those safety nets.

So you are saying Republicans have a well thought out plan to eventually bankrupt the US govt to dismantle safety nets they created? Remember the federal govt obviously cares less about balancing its budget regardless of who is in power.

 

[Genx87]

Maybe you guys should join in then, if both sides had a bit of class conciseness instead of kissing ass to the wealthy/powerful hoping to be handed the world by them for swallowing their BS like some entitled wanna-be aristocracy this country wouldn't be so corrupt.

Both sides need to police this stuff lest you fall into the realm of partisan hypocrisy, this is how democracy works. Republicans used to be able to govern and think rationally, granted its been awhile. *goes to take a shower after kinda defending the right*

I have been railing against the cronyism in our govt for years. The difference is I believe the way to dismantle the cronyism is to limit the govt and wealth is contains. Your belief is more govt and wealth concentration. Which looks more appetizing to the wealthy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Kerry was acceptable because that was the choice given, just as Bush was. The more Progressive choice wasn't wanted by the head organization because that would have created a destabilizing influence. As usual those who cry about how Progressives should be in charge immediately fell into place and supported Kerry.

Don't feel special because that is exactly what the Republicans will likely do with Romney who most agree is the most moderate of the lot. They'll back him because he's not Obama.

 

[Steeplerot]

So you are saying Republicans have a well thought out plan to eventually bankrupt the US govt to dismantle safety nets they created?

Yes, it is painfully obvious, crack a book and look at how industry+government collude throughout history, a look at what has been done to south american governments/people for the past few centuries is a great example.

Remember the federal govt obviously cares less about balancing its budget regardless of who is in power.

absolutely, but this is only 2% of the picture, the feds and the state governments are now gamed by industry colluding with these folks, the corruption is everywhere. The GOP shamelessly started the deregulation scam that let our system be gamed this far, the Dems are always playing catchup of course. (Big O is not doing that bad really on this front, and its a shame, the GOP is dragging us down as it is literally on the fast track, with a giant media empire totally in bed with big industry shamelessly) This crap has ALWAYS been a problem in the USA, but like the media we used to at least have a bit of shaming going on for doing it.

Now the GOP is all about full bore selling out and using class warfare disinformation corrupting the working class into pushing for things blatantly not in their best interest. It's unbelievable how shameless whores these people have become, and put up this cult like defensive front.

There are a lot of religious fundies end timers also in the GOP pushing this self-destructive agenda. You are gonna have to talk to your guys about this crap. Its a unsustainable path.

 

[piasabird]

I think it is time for some of these debate moderators and media personalities to have to submit their taxes before they can ask all their stupid questions.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So you are saying Republicans have a well thought out plan to eventually bankrupt the US govt to dismantle safety nets they created? Remember the federal govt obviously cares less about balancing its budget regardless of who is in power.

You remember that whole debt ceiling fiasco last year? And their insistence not to increase revenues? Calls for austerity? A balanced budget? Sacrificing social safety nets under the guise of responsible budgeting is exactly their goal. But don't act you don't know this already.

And don't try to confuse or equate corporate welfare spending with safety net spending, the two things are diametrically opposed.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think it is time for some of these debate moderators and media personalities to have to submit their taxes before they can ask all their stupid questions.

Why? Are they running for office too?